Hi all, I've a strange question about how (and if) to distribute VSX LAG's member ports on a VSX node ports considering the physical SFP cage grouping of those ports (if any) and do that particularly when deploying a VSX LAG made of (at least) four ports, thus when the VSX LAG uses two ports per VSX node on each VSX node (or, eventually, when a simple non-VSX LAG uses more than two ports on the very same Switch in case VSX LAGs are not involved).
Just as an example to clarify my scenario...let me consider an Aruba 8360 32Y4C where two SFP cages can be easily recognized by looking at the switch
externally (OK it's just a visual recognition...only knowing how those groups are eventually connected internally will clarify if one has the right to ask what I'm asking here)...one can just ask this for the sake of curiosity:
What if SFP ports 1-16 of the first SFP cage on the front left follow a different internal path to Switch ASIC in comparison to SFP ports 17-23 of the second SFP cage on the front right?
Should we take care of this potential external AND internal "grouping" - and I ask that from the resiliency standpoint against a potential internal failure (say an entire SFP cage goes down because the ASIC fails on the connectivity to that SFP cage ) - when we setup a VSX LAG involving at least four ports, two per VSX node?
Say...instead of creating the VSX LAG on VSX Primary node made of port 1/0/1 and port 1/0/2 (both of SFP Cage 1), use - as example - port 1/0/1 (of SFP Cage 1) and port 1/0/17 (of SFP Cage 2) and do the same on the VSX Secondary node.
Does this sound unreasonable or crazy (or both)?
Is it based on wrong assumptions (very improbable or totally wrong failure scenarios <- if ASIC fails, it fails entirely impacting both SFP cages at the same time) or, in any case, is it useless as a alternative (and creative) approach?
------------------------------
Davide Poletto
------------------------------